Gibbs To Media: Please Balance Your Hyping Of Palin’s Lunacy With Some Reality

[one...two...tree 2,762]

White House press sec Robert Gibbs went on the offensive against the media today, demanding that attention to Sarah Palin’s “death panel” comments be balanced by GOP Senator Johnny Isakson’s claim in an interview that Palin’s charge is, well, insane.

Gibbs pointed to the Isakson interview, and according to the White House transcript, added:

Is there a constant struggle because you guys would rather cover Sarah Palin saying something that Johnny Isakson says is nuts? Sure, there’s always a struggle in that.

Later in the briefing, a skeptical reporter asked whether the White House isn’t secretly glad about Palin’s comments, because they amount to “a shiny object that distracts from the actual debate.” To which Gibbs replied…

I think they serve to make a certain segment of charges outlandish, there’s no doubt about that. But I think we’d all be served better if the coverage of that was less about the personality of the former governor and more about the fact that even Republicans think what she said isn’t true.

Jonathan Martin today described Gibbs’ broadside this way: “It’s the media’s fault, Vol IV, Chapter Nine.” Look, there’s always a bit of schtik involved when the White House pressures the media and it’s fair to regard it with some skepticism.

That said, come on now: Palin accused Obama of trying to set up government death panels who would determine who lives or dies based on how productive they are in society. Sometimes the most whacked out claims are, perversely, the ones that get less scrutiny because they’re almost too whacked out to process.

But judging by anecdotal evidence from town halls around the country, elected officials are getting hit by a host of sincerely intentioned questions from constituents about variations of the “death panel” nonsense. That should matter. As it happens, two Republicans — Senator Isakson, and also Susan Collins — have introduced their own end of life measures.

Forget for a moment that it was the White House that asked the press to balance coverage of Palin’s lunacy with these basic facts. Is it really an unreasonable request?

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/politica...h-some-reality/

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Today, we live in the age of rabid response.

Not rapid response. Rapid response was yesterday. Rapid response was the political tactic of responding quickly to all attacks, no matter how outrageous or unbelievable.

Those who did not respond rapidly, those who told themselves the public would not believe outright lies, failed to win higher office. (Thus Democrats still blame John Kerry for not responding rapidly enough in 2004 to the attacks of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.)

Rabid response is different.

The purpose of rabid response is to scorch the earth, to raise the stakes, to go nuclear in the hope that your opponent will be so shellshocked he can make no response at all. The purpose of rabid response is to grab the public by the throat and not let go.

Have concerns over Barack Obama’s health care plan? I don’t doubt it. The plan is very long and very complicated and still a work in progress.

But there is one thing we do know about it: It will establish “death panels.”

These death panels will determine whether you, your baby, your parents or your grandparents will receive health care or be left to die. In the street. Like a dog.

How will the death panels operate? Who will be on them? Will they validate parking? We do not know. We know only that the death panels will judge each individual’s “level of productivity in society” and render a life or death judgment.

So says Sarah Palin on her Facebook page.

In olden times, Palin might have made this claim at a speech or during a news conference where reporters might have asked questions like: “What proof do you have?” or “Aren’t you just trying to scare people?”

But Palin does not risk that. She takes no questions. She has done her duty as a rabid responder. She has rung the tocsin, sounded the alarm, lit the signal fire.

Truth? Accuracy? Responsibility?

Not her territory.

Glenn Beck is a rabid responder on race. “This president, I think, he has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture,” Beck says. “This guy is, I believe, a racist.”

Rush Limbaugh is a rabid responder on Nazis and swastikas. He knows a lot about swastikas. He sees them everywhere. He looks at the Obama health care logo — which incorporates the familiar medical symbol of twin serpents on a staff — and sees it as being “damn close to a Nazi swastika logo.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi muddied the waters — surprise! — by saying those who oppose Obama’s health care plan “are carrying swastikas and symbols like that to a town meeting on health care.”

But Limbaugh had a rabid response for that: “There are far more similarities between Nancy Pelosi and Adolf Hitler than between these people showing up at town halls to protest a Hitler-like policy that’s being heralded by a Hitler-like logo.”

And then, out of left (or right) field, came this: “Ted Kennedy’s dad, by the way, Joe Kennedy, sympathetic to Hitler, sympathetic to the Nazis,” Limbaugh said.

But Limbaugh was not done with the Nazis or Hitler. In the world of rabid response, invoking the ultimate symbols of evil to describe one’s political opponents is routine.

It doesn’t matter what you say, as long as it is over the top and beneath contempt.

“Adolf Hitler, like Barack Obama, also ruled by dictate,” Limbaugh said. “Hitler said he didn’t need to meet with his Cabinet; he represented the will of the people. He was called the messiah. He said the people spoke through him.”

Which means, I guess, if Hitler were alive today, he would be a talk show host.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/...l#ixzz0NunEXvLX

[Ban Hammer 13,396]

and once again, the left pays more attention to palin than the right. makes me wonder if they have some fetish for her.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

and once again, the left pays more attention to palin than the right. makes me wonder if they have some fetish for her.

Charles, you're in denial if you think that lady has absolutely no political clout among Right Wingers. That's like saying Limbaugh or Glenn Beck have no clout because they aren't in office. Cult of personality, brother. Open your eyes.

[Ban Hammer 13,396]

and once again, the left pays more attention to palin than the right. makes me wonder if they have some fetish for her.

Charles, you're in denial if you think that lady has absolutely no political clout among Right Wingers. That's like saying Limbaugh or Glenn Beck have no clout because they aren't in office. Cult of personality, brother. Open your eyes.

i'm not paying attention to her and you are, that must mean you are a right winger?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think Palin became irrelevant as soon as she stepped away from frontline politics. Its counterproductive to give airtime to her views.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

and once again, the left pays more attention to palin than the right. makes me wonder if they have some fetish for her.

Charles, you're in denial if you think that lady has absolutely no political clout among Right Wingers. That's like saying Limbaugh or Glenn Beck have no clout because they aren't in office. Cult of personality, brother. Open your eyes.

i'm not paying attention to her and you are, that must mean you are a right winger?

Do you represent all the Right Wing Nuts out there?

[Ban Hammer 13,396]

and once again, the left pays more attention to palin than the right. makes me wonder if they have some fetish for her.

Charles, you're in denial if you think that lady has absolutely no political clout among Right Wingers. That's like saying Limbaugh or Glenn Beck have no clout because they aren't in office. Cult of personality, brother. Open your eyes.

i'm not paying attention to her and you are, that must mean you are a right winger?

Do you represent all the Right Wing Nuts out there?

i think that may be a better question posed to you

[one...two...tree 2,762]

and once again, the left pays more attention to palin than the right. makes me wonder if they have some fetish for her.

Charles, you're in denial if you think that lady has absolutely no political clout among Right Wingers. That's like saying Limbaugh or Glenn Beck have no clout because they aren't in office. Cult of personality, brother. Open your eyes.

i'm not paying attention to her and you are, that must mean you are a right winger?

Do you represent all the Right Wing Nuts out there?

i think that may be a better question posed to you

Oh snap.

[alienlovechild 75]

Charles, you're in denial if you think that lady has absolutely no political clout among Right Wingers. That's like saying Limbaugh or Glenn Beck have no clout because they aren't in office. Cult of personality, brother. Open your eyes.

I'd be careful about using the term "cult of personality" as Obama resembles that remark.

Limbaugh wasn't a friend of McCain's so his influence is limited. There's big difference between a political commentator and a policymaker.

Polls change but apparently you'd better focus on Romney since he has the edge. In 2012? Who knows but it fairly certainly the Democrats will lose seats in 2010. It's just a question of how many.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121715/romney-e...2-gop-test.aspx

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Charles, you're in denial if you think that lady has absolutely no political clout among Right Wingers. That's like saying Limbaugh or Glenn Beck have no clout because they aren't in office. Cult of personality, brother. Open your eyes.

I'd be careful about using the term "cult of personality" as Obama resembles that remark.

Limbaugh wasn't a friend of McCain's so his influence is limited. There's big difference between a political commentator and a policymaker.

Polls change but apparently you'd better focus on Romney since he has the edge. In 2012? Who knows but it fairly certainly the Democrats will lose seats in 2010. It's just a question of how many.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121715/romney-e...2-gop-test.aspx

I agree - the cult of personality is a consequence of our celebrity centered media and anyone can become part of it, whether they do so willingly or not.

In any case, there are a lot of Right Wingers who would vote for Palin if there were a presidential election held tomorrow. She is far from being over, politically.

[*Robert* 2]

Polls change but apparently you'd better focus on Romney since he has the edge. In 2012? Who knows but it fairly certainly the Democrats will lose seats in 2010. It's just a question of how many.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/121715/romney-e...2-gop-test.aspx